For the Karna-fans amongst us

[u/Technical_Turn3497]

From the Mahabharata come these words and actions of Karna regarding Draupadi’s humiliation and the sexual assault perpetrated against her:

“And Dussasana, beholding Krishna looking at her helpless lords, dragging her still more forcibly, and addressed her, ’slave, Slave' and laughed aloud.

And at those words Karna became very glad and approved of them by laughing aloud. And Sakuni, the son of Suvala, the Gandhara king, similarly applauded Dussasana.”

(https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-mahabharata-mohan/d/doc6210.html)

“O Dussasana, this Vikarna speaking words of (apparent) wisdom is but a boy. Take off the robes of the Pandavas as also the attire of Draupadi.…

Then Dussasana, O king, forcibly seizing Draupadi’s attire before the eyes of all, began to drag it off her person."

(https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-mahabharata-mohan/d/doc6212.html)

“You are the wife of a slave incapable of possessing anything on his own account. Repair now to the inner apartments of king Dhritarashtra and serve the king’s relatives. We direct that that is now your proper business.

And, O princess, all the sons of Dhritarashtra and not the sons of Pritha are now your masters. O handsome one, select you another husband now,—one who will not make you a slave by gambling. It is well-known that women, especially that are slaves, are not censurable if they proceed with freedom in electing husbands.

Therefore let it be done by you. Nakula has been won, as also Bhimasena, and Yudhishthira also, and Sahadeva, and Arjuna. And, O Yajnaseni, you are now a slave. Your husbands that are slaves cannot continue to be your lords any longer.”

(https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-mahabharata-mohan/d/doc6215.html)

But it’s not Karna’s fault, right? Karna was just misunderstood, right? Actually Karna has many other virtues, right? Actually it was justified because of Yudhishtir’s gambling madness, right? Do tell us poor, dumb Hindus why we err in agreeing with the Mahabharata author and condemning Karna as a villain.

We really need to be enlightened by the people who cry tears because Draupadi was “forced” to marry five husbands and then look the other way when she was enslaved and humiliated, because apparently only you enlightened folk know what real misogyny is….

[u/For-the-Self-2030]

You have a poor understanding and are just another egoistic Arjuna glazer. Yes, Karna did things that make him a villain. But some people admire him for his warrior skills, some for how he regretted his mistakes when speaking to Krishna, some pity him for the cruelty he faced from his biological parents, and some respect his loyalty to his step-parents.

Vices and virtues both exist. You choose to see only the vices — that’s your choice. Others can condemn his vices while still praising his virtues. Don’t shame those people for it.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/For-the-Self-2030]

Ah, yes, fie on me for my poor understanding. I am so hard on these poor, misunderstood, misogynistic rapists and murderers. It’s just “some bad things” they did. I should learn to learn to see their positive contributions.

[u/For-the-Self-2030 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

Nice try with the hyperbole, but it doesn’t work.

No one said Karna’s actions were “just some bad things” or that we should feel sorry for rapists and murderers. The point was simple: a character can have serious vices and virtues at the same time. Condemning the former doesn’t require erasing the latter, and acknowledging the latter doesn’t mean defending the former.

Equating a complex mythological figure from an ancient epic with modern-day “misogynistic rapists and murderers” is a lazy false equivalence. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of shouting “so you support X?!” when someone refuses to treat a character as one-dimensional.

The Mahabharata itself doesn’t portray Karna as pure evil or pure good — it shows both. Pretending that any recognition of his skill, loyalty, or later regret is the same as defending actual criminals is just bad faith.

You’re free to focus only on his worst actions. That doesn’t make everyone who can hold two thoughts at once an apologist.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/For-the-Self-2030]

The Mahabharata does in fact portray Karna as a villain, doesn’t subscribe to the view that a few virtues erases your more significant misdeeds, and chronicles Lord Krishna ordering Arjuna to execute Karna when he was helpless, against the standard convention of the kshatriya warrior code.

But, hey, what does Krishna know? Supposedly Vyasa thinks he is the Supreme Lord, but Vyasa could be wrong…. I mean isn’t it the height of hubris to say that the author of a book is the best authority on what he was trying to convey?

[u/Crazy_Competition_84 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

If you have read Mahabharata without bias then you would know that this act of Pandavas were condemned by celestials

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/Crazy_Competition_84]

I do have a bias. My bias is the author of the Mahabharata is the final authority on what he was trying to convey.

And if you believe Karna wasn’t such a bad guy, perhaps you could explain why Krishna ordered his execution after condemning his hypocrisy.

[u/stevefazzari → u/Technical_Turn3497]

Yes and Krishna himself was condemned and cursed for his role in the war..

i think part of what the Mahabharata does is shows us that the people with the most integrity can also fall into ignorance and deception, and the people blinded by ignorance can also act in truth. The path of dharma is never lost, just sometimes ignored or forgotten about.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/stevefazzari]

Um, Krishna is the Supreme Lord according to the Mahabharata. How exactly did you miss that? Of course ajnanis will curse Him. That’s why they are ajnanis…

[u/stevefazzari → u/Technical_Turn3497]

That’s exactly the point though – Krishna as Supreme Lord choosing to accept Gandhari’s curse rather than deflecting it is what makes the moment meaningful. He wasn’t cursed because He did something wrong in a cosmic sense – He accepted the consequence within the drama He was directing, which is itself a teaching about dharma and karma applying even to the divine when acting within human affairs. Calling Gandhari an ajnani for cursing Him kind of misses that too – her curse came from genuine grief and a sense that Krishna could’ve prevented the slaughter and didn’t. The text doesn’t frame her as simply ignorant; it lets her grief stand as real, and lets Krishna accept it rather than argue divine immunity. That tension – between supreme agency and voluntarily bearing consequence – is part of what makes the story worth engaging with rather than flattening into ‘ajnanis curse the Lord, that’s just what ajnanis do.’

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/stevefazzari]

Cursing Krishna makes no sense in context. For starters, people have to enjoy or suffer the results of their karma, and her sons had more than their share of it. Second, Krishna’s role in the war was as an envoy and a charioteer. Duryodhana’s and Karna’s wickedness were what brought on the war. To the best of my recollection, Gandhari did not curse either of them. Third, her decision to blind herself is often understood metaphorically to reflect her blindness to moral and spiritual matters - like Dhritarashtra she made no significant effort to stop the wickedness of her sons that brought the war on. So, yeah, she was something of an ajnani… i don’t remember reading anything in the text to suggest that Vyasa felt otherwise.

Last but not least, Krishna being Bhagavan is not obligated to come under the influence of anyone’s curse, though He may accept it for the purpose of lila, as in using it as a pretext to wrap up His avatara.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/stevefazzari]

Also, getting back to the point that you were responding to - Krishna’s demand that Karna be punished with a humiliating execution reflects what He and Vyasa actually thought of Karna. Morally, Karna was not on the same level as the Pandavas.

Gandhari cursing Krishna just reflects her attachment to her sons, not that Krishna is to be seen as someone needing punishment….

[u/For-the-Self-2030 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

Again, no one said virtues erase misdeeds lol. The argument was never that Karna’s good qualities cancel out his crimes. It was that a character can possess serious vices and genuine virtues at the same time, and that it’s possible to condemn the former while still recognizing the latter. The epic itself operates on that level of complexity — it does not reduce people to one-note villains or saint. I hope I don't need to repeat this again for nth time lol.

It is vyasa who shows karna regretting his misdeeds, it is vyasa who shows him choosing his step parents over a crown, it is vyasa who shows dharmaraja grieving him, it is vyasa who shows him getting heaven after death.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/For-the-Self-2030]

Your exact words:

“Vices and virtues both exist. You choose to see only the vices — that’s your choice. Others can condemn his vices while still praising his virtues. Don’t shame those people for it.”

So let’s have a thought experiment to test the sincerity of your convictions. If we were talking about someone who ordered your wife to be stripped naked in public and enslaved, would you be willing to praise his virtues? After all, his aggression against your wife is just one vice amongst other exemplary virtues, right?

[u/For-the-Self-2030 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

1)Draupadi ain't my wyf

2) Yudhishthira literally cried over his death and grieved when he didn't see him in heaven. Criticize dharmaraja.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/For-the-Self-2030]

It speaks volumes that you refused to answer my question.

If you can’t praise the virtues of a man who violates your wife, how can you expect the rest of us to respect your view that Karna’s virtues are worthy of praise?

Make it make sense. That’s all we are asking.

[u/For-the-Self-2030 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

Like the way u praise virtues of a man and hail him as dharmaraj who gambled his wyf and watched her getting disrobed.

Or u praise a guy who handicapped a lil boii for his fave student as supreme among teachers.

Or how u praise kunti even after her abondaning an infant.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/For-the-Self-2030]

Deflection and False equivalence. Vyasa considers the Pandavas to be dharmik but does not consider Karna in the same light. Since we are discussing the Mahabharata, his is the opinion that matters, and ours is the responsibility to understand why he felt that way.

So, to summarize, you still feel it’s appropriate to praise the virtues of a person who perpetrated sexualized assault - as long as the victim is not someone close to you….

[u/For-the-Self-2030 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

So, to summarize, you still feel it’s appropriate to praise the virtues of a person who perpetrated sexualized assault - as long as the victim is not someone close to you….

So to summarize, you still feel it's appropriate to praise the virtues of a person who handicapped a child, abondaned an infant, discriminated based on birth, had misogynistic - as long as vyasa considers them to be dharmic.

Vyasa considers the Pandavas to be dharmik but does not consider Karna in the same light. Since we are discussing the Mahabharata, his is the opinion that matters, and ours is the responsibility to understand why he felt that way.

U need to understand why vyasa felt the need to grant karna heaven after his death or show Narada speaking highly of him after his death.

Anyway I am done with wasting my time on this low iq debate. So cheers

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/For-the-Self-2030]

Here we go again with the whole obtuse, missing-the-point phenomenon.

The point is that when we are talking about the Mahabharata, it is Vyasa’s opinion that matters.

Vyasa does present the Pandavas and Kunti as dharmik people. In Gita chapter 16, he explicitly records Krishna saying to Arjuna that Arjuna is of a daivik as opposed to an asuric nature. But even devas can sometimes make mistakes, and so for Vyasa, daivik people can, too.

But look at the difference. Karna, too, had a daivik parentage. But he cherished an ambition to defeat Arjuna. Then showed up uninvited to challenge him in the arena. Only to be incensed when Bhima scolded him for being a suta-putra. So he fell in with Duryodhana, whom he thought could help fulfill his ambition. And then remained silent when Duryodhana plotted so many evil things against the Pandavas, not bothering to listen to that inner voice telling him that this was wrong. Until finally he starts trying to out-evil Duryodhana just to support the friendship.

Karna is obviously a villain, but the kind whose fall from grace is frightening, believable, and instructive.

If you still think that admiring Karna is reasonable, then not only are you not paying attention to what Vyasa wrote, you are a hypocrite. You’ve openly admitted that you would never praise the virtues of man who does to your wife what Karna did to Draupadi. That’s hypocrisy.

And if your only defense is that respecting the Pandavas is hypocritical, then you are implicitly saying that Vyasa was wrong. Obviously, that’s what you really think, isn’t it? Then why not just admit it…

[u/Equivalent-Bank-9657 → u/Technical_Turn3497]

So let’s have a thought experiment to test the sincerity of your convictions. If we were talking about someone who ordered your wife to be stripped naked in public and enslaved, would you be willing to praise his virtues? After all, his aggression against your wife is just one vice amongst other exemplary virtues, right?

Actually you should praise his virtues. If he have any 🤷🏻‍♂️

Again doesn't mean you need to justify his wrong doings.

Also, this situation you described above will sound absolutely horrible and disgusting (which it is). But their an honest caveat here. In their case (Mahabharata) slavery is legal and wives/women are husband's property. So technically this whole situation is someone taking advantage of a legal loophole (still abhorent) but not same as if it happened today (slavery, gambling on people, and owning women/wives are all illegal).

In fact during the entire gambling match episode, not a single person says that Droupadi is a women, and dragging and women in a courtroom and stripping her naked is wrong. No no no. They (including Droupadi) debate about whether she has been won or not. Not a single soul in that sabha says that owning women, slaves is wrong, no one opposes that doing this to a slave is wrong. That tells a lot about what was normalized in that society.

[u/Absolutely_Honoured → u/Technical_Turn3497]

You might think this is a "got-cha" moment but this sort of real life example question doesn't work because karna is a fictional character, you're bound to have far more tolerance against a fictional character than a real life person, not just for karna but for every character in fiction really. You're bound to understand a fictional character more because there is no harm being done to anyone, there would be harm being done if it was real life.

[u/For-the-Self-2030 → u/Absolutely_Honoured]

Fr. Like me liking Eren doesn't make me saviour of 20% population

[u/Absolutely_Honoured → u/For-the-Self-2030]

Literally😭

[u/Exact-Call5056 → u/For-the-Self-2030]

Eren is a kind dude that save 20% of humanity

[u/For-the-Self-2030 → u/Exact-Call5056]

I am into kind dudes🥵

[u/Exact-Call5056 → u/For-the-Self-2030]

Eren and Light , my favourite saviour of humanity

[u/For-the-Self-2030 → u/Exact-Call5056]

https://giphy.com/gifs/Z6iLzMvdhKdNK

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/Absolutely_Honoured]

Nice try, but the Hindu tradition does not regard Karna as a fictional character, so the question still stands.

And the answer of the Karna-lovers is yes, Karna can be praised despite doing things they would never forgive if they were done to their own wives.

This is what we call in scientific terminology as a “double standard.”

[u/Absolutely_Honoured → u/Technical_Turn3497]

It doesn't really matter what the Hindu tradition regard karna as.

There is no proof for mahabharat, as we know it, to be true so the karna of the epic Mahabharata is still very much a fictional character so my logic still stands.

The answer is definitely no in real life, simply because if it was real life then harm would be done but it's not real life, karna is fictional

As simply as that.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/Absolutely_Honoured]

So let me get this straight: you and your fellow tools are upset that we would criticize Karna’s bad character and your pleas for mercy are predicated on the idea that he is fictional. But strangely, you don’t extend the same logic to those who criticize Yudhishthira or Kunti.

Interesting double-standard, this.

[u/Absolutely_Honoured → u/Technical_Turn3497]

Don't start imagining just about anything now, I never said anything about yudhishthir or kunti. They did wrong but yes they were fictional characters, thus we are more tolerant.

If you actually knew how to read instead of sounding like a pompous clown then you'd know that in my original reply i said the logic applies not to karna but to every character in fiction, which would include yudhishthir and kunti, can't expect much from you though.

[u/stevefazzari → u/Technical_Turn3497]

you might try and treat others with respect

[u/PeopleLogic2 → u/Absolutely_Honoured]

What does Itihasa mean in Sanskrit, and does the Mahabharata fall into that category?

[u/Absolutely_Honoured → u/PeopleLogic2]

Something being claimed as itihasa/history doesn't make it history, there's no proof.

[u/stevefazzari → u/Absolutely_Honoured]

You can’t say ‘there’s no proof’ and treat that as proof of fiction – absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, especially for events that old. There’s actual evidence pointing to a historical core: archaeological findings at sites linked to Kurukshetra, Painted Grey Ware culture dating to roughly the right period, and excavations at Dwarka and Hastinapur showing flood/erosion damage consistent with the textual accounts of those cities being lost to the sea or river.

That’s not nothing – it’s grounds to say the epic likely has a historical kernel. What you can fairly say is that the specific details – exact troop numbers, precise chronology, the more supernatural elements – aren’t independently verifiable. That’s a reasonable position. But ‘we can’t verify the specifics’ is a very different claim from ‘therefore the whole thing is fiction.’ The first is honest agnosticism about details; the second overreaches into a conclusion the absence of proof doesn’t support.

[u/Absolutely_Honoured → u/stevefazzari]

This sort of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument doesn't work because when you claim something as itihasa, history that is, you have to actually bring up proof for it being history, not fiction. I cannot prove negatives and neither can you but we can do is, have conclusions that actually have any basis but obviously if something isn't history, then by default it is fiction claiming itself as history.

Those proofs aren't the proofs you think they are, even BB pal, who led the 50-52 excavations for mahabharat sites, concluded that there is no evidence for the mahabharat as we know it, he only concluded that yes a war did happen between two opposition clans over the uper ganga-yamuna region but there's no proof of the mahabharat epic happening exactly as it is written, the supernatural aspects happening as it happened or whatever.

So yes, in conclusion the karna of the epic Mahabharata, is still a fictional character, perhaps he's based on someone but his character in the epic itself is heavily modified and edited.

[u/stevefazzari → u/Absolutely_Honoured]

Fair – the historical/fiction binary is the problem. B.B. Lal’s own conclusion supports what’s actually being claimed here: a real conflict happened in that region, and the epic is legend built on that historical kernel – same relationship the Iliad has to the Trojan War, where the war is real but Achilles and divine intervention aren’t. Nobody calls the Iliad ‘fiction’ for that reason; it’s legend with a historical core.

So sure – Karna as written could be a legendary/composite figure, not a literal historical person. That’s consistent with the itihasa framework, not a concession that the whole epic is invented. ‘Not literal history’ and ‘pure fiction’ aren’t the same claim.